After two years they woke up. I new we would add not bring home. Of course it's always some excuse. To bad they didn't plan it right from the start. Heck they might all be home.
More Troops
- Thread starter djv
- Start date
your living the amerian dream and you support our boys overseas like you do ! you should be ashame of yourself , lose all respect for you
die mother fuvker :flush:
die mother fuvker :flush:
RAYMOND said:
go to hell !troops would love to read your post :moon:
not as much as they love going over there and dying for nothing
get the concrete out of your head
:withstupi
"not as much as they love going over there and dying for nothing"
I would let those over there putting their life on line--and the Iraq's be the judge if they are dying for nothing.
I can never understand liberal logic--Had the same in my era when the very same type of people mourned and protested the deaths of soilders then spit on them when they returned.
These same people that pre war condemned U.S. for sanctions on Iraq because it was killing children now find who the real killer was and still whine that are removal of him was unjust--go figure!
I would let those over there putting their life on line--and the Iraq's be the judge if they are dying for nothing.
I can never understand liberal logic--Had the same in my era when the very same type of people mourned and protested the deaths of soilders then spit on them when they returned.
These same people that pre war condemned U.S. for sanctions on Iraq because it was killing children now find who the real killer was and still whine that are removal of him was unjust--go figure!
Our Troops always deserve the best. Sometime those who lead them need replacing. Sometime the plan is not as good as we need. In this case we seem to still have same old chit going on as we did in week 4 of this invasion. Yes we have Saddam and his Sons. But we have found out there were plenty of others waiting to take there place. Many come in from the borders we never secured. Thats why we needed more from the start to do it right. We will never know if half our folks could be home already. But because we under estimated the threat we are now sending more late in the day. Same lesson we were to have learned in nam. It' easy for those who have never went. Or there kids are not there now to say. Oh well. We all Americans need to see our troops get the best of everything. That includes planning, not just equipment.
I love how those who support this insane war also supported the insanity that was Vietnam. That alone should tell you something. Our soldiers deserve our respect. They also deserve a leader who puts them first. They deserve leaders who will only put them in harms way if America is threatened, and then only as a last resort. And when they do go into battle they deserve leaders with a plan. Unfortunately, these kids have none of that.
Well, another few thousand won't do it. We need at least double the current numbers - like the realistic pre-war projections said. But instead we went with Bush and Rumsfeld's unrealistic "wishful thinking" guess.RAYMOND said:
If we want to win and leave, we need double the troops. If we want to also have resources for Iran or N. Korea then we need a draft. If we want good national morale when we draft, then we probably need to be attacked again for motivation.
Perle: Rumsfeld Opposed, Powell Wanted Occupation
Secretary Colin Powell, the State Department and the CIA ? not Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ? are responsible for the chaos that has grown out of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, says Richard Perle, the former chairman of Pentagon's Defense Policy Review Board.
Appearing on Fox News' "O?Reilly Factor" Monday night, Perle said the U.S. made a most serious mistake after Iraq was liberated and the "keys" were not handed over immediately to Iraqis to run their own country.
Thus, the U.S. military became an occupying force ? and an increasibly unpopular one.
"We didn?t hand the keys over to the Iraqis. Instead we embarked on what became an extended occupation. That was fundamentally mistaken ? it was politically driven," Perle said.
Perle's remarks places significant distance between postwar policies and neo-conservatives like himself who have backed the war and have been championed in the Bush administration by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, and Vice President Cheney.
Perle told O'Reilly the idea of a military occupation was not the Pentagon's original plan.
"It was not Don Rumsfeld?s decision," he said.
Asked by O?Reilly if handing the keys over to the Iraqis after deposing Saddam would have sparked a civil war between the Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites, Perle said he didn?t think so. He noted that there were already groups of anti-Saddam Iraqis in place when the dictator fell.
"There was an umbrella group of opposition figures. It included Shia, Sunnis, Kurds and in the end, of course, we did turn to the Iraqis. We asked them to form a governing council, then an interim government, but we made the big mistake of not trusting the Iraqis.
"I?m not saying that everything would have worked out, but everything certainly didn?t work out the way we did it. My own view is we should have supported a government in exile even before going into Iraq."
O?Reilly asked how much responsibility Rumsfeld bears for the current situation in Iraq.
"I think the conduct of the war was brilliant," Perle observed. "The campaign will go down in history as one of the greatest military campaigns ever. Saddam was removed and his regime fell within three weeks.
"The problems didn?t start immediately after Saddam?s removal. The problems started when the occupation began to wear on the people, and that was predictable."
When O?Reilly cited Colin Powell as a dissenting voice who warned the president that if "you break it [Iraq], you?ll own it," Perle said, "the irony is that it was Secretary Powell and some others who wanted the extended occupation. They are the ones who did not want to turn things over to the Iraqis, who feared and distrusted the Iraqis and blocked all efforts to do precisely that."
Perle then revealed that even before the war Rumsfeld?s Department of Defense had argued that we should train thousands of Iraqis "to go in with us so that we wouldn?t be the aggressor, we wouldn?t be the occupying power, and those proposals were blocked largely by the State Department and the CIA. Rumsfeld was never able to get approval for the political strategy that might well have saved us from much of the subsequent trouble."
Responding to O?Reilly?s remark that the we are now seen as the "bad guys," Perle said that the situation in Iraq can be cleaned up.
"Remember, we were portrayed as the bad guys when the only policy for dealing with Saddam were sanctions and the argument was that Iraqi babies were dying as result of the sanctions. We?re making real progress and the political evolution is critical. There is a desperate effort now to cope with the fact that after these elections the Iraqis will be fully invested in their own future, and I think we?ve already begun to turn the corner."
Secretary Colin Powell, the State Department and the CIA ? not Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ? are responsible for the chaos that has grown out of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, says Richard Perle, the former chairman of Pentagon's Defense Policy Review Board.
Appearing on Fox News' "O?Reilly Factor" Monday night, Perle said the U.S. made a most serious mistake after Iraq was liberated and the "keys" were not handed over immediately to Iraqis to run their own country.
Thus, the U.S. military became an occupying force ? and an increasibly unpopular one.
"We didn?t hand the keys over to the Iraqis. Instead we embarked on what became an extended occupation. That was fundamentally mistaken ? it was politically driven," Perle said.
Perle's remarks places significant distance between postwar policies and neo-conservatives like himself who have backed the war and have been championed in the Bush administration by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, and Vice President Cheney.
Perle told O'Reilly the idea of a military occupation was not the Pentagon's original plan.
"It was not Don Rumsfeld?s decision," he said.
Asked by O?Reilly if handing the keys over to the Iraqis after deposing Saddam would have sparked a civil war between the Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites, Perle said he didn?t think so. He noted that there were already groups of anti-Saddam Iraqis in place when the dictator fell.
"There was an umbrella group of opposition figures. It included Shia, Sunnis, Kurds and in the end, of course, we did turn to the Iraqis. We asked them to form a governing council, then an interim government, but we made the big mistake of not trusting the Iraqis.
"I?m not saying that everything would have worked out, but everything certainly didn?t work out the way we did it. My own view is we should have supported a government in exile even before going into Iraq."
O?Reilly asked how much responsibility Rumsfeld bears for the current situation in Iraq.
"I think the conduct of the war was brilliant," Perle observed. "The campaign will go down in history as one of the greatest military campaigns ever. Saddam was removed and his regime fell within three weeks.
"The problems didn?t start immediately after Saddam?s removal. The problems started when the occupation began to wear on the people, and that was predictable."
When O?Reilly cited Colin Powell as a dissenting voice who warned the president that if "you break it [Iraq], you?ll own it," Perle said, "the irony is that it was Secretary Powell and some others who wanted the extended occupation. They are the ones who did not want to turn things over to the Iraqis, who feared and distrusted the Iraqis and blocked all efforts to do precisely that."
Perle then revealed that even before the war Rumsfeld?s Department of Defense had argued that we should train thousands of Iraqis "to go in with us so that we wouldn?t be the aggressor, we wouldn?t be the occupying power, and those proposals were blocked largely by the State Department and the CIA. Rumsfeld was never able to get approval for the political strategy that might well have saved us from much of the subsequent trouble."
Responding to O?Reilly?s remark that the we are now seen as the "bad guys," Perle said that the situation in Iraq can be cleaned up.
"Remember, we were portrayed as the bad guys when the only policy for dealing with Saddam were sanctions and the argument was that Iraqi babies were dying as result of the sanctions. We?re making real progress and the political evolution is critical. There is a desperate effort now to cope with the fact that after these elections the Iraqis will be fully invested in their own future, and I think we?ve already begun to turn the corner."
That's the biggest crock of bullshit that i've seen yet regarding the war/occupation. Simply incredible. Richard Perle should stfu, he's embarrassing himself.
Boy are you right Kosar. Talk about someone given a script to follow. They forgot about the two generals they fired when told you cant do this with less then 200000 troops. Oh well seems no one really gives a chit anymore. I mean even the liberial press does not give it much front page anymore. I wonder how many Americans know we lost 81 soldiers just screwing around with fallujah. And another 166 wounded.
Last edited:
MORE PROUD SOLDIERS KILLED YESTERDAY. AND FOR WHAT OIL AND ISRAEL.
MAYBE ITS WORTH IT IN THE LONG RUN. IM VERY PROUD OF THE SOLDIERS BUT EXTREMELY ASHAMED OF THE GUYS APPROVING THIS. IF THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN ORGANIZED PROPERLY IM SURE ALOT LESS AMERICAN SOLDIERS WOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED.
VIET NAM WAS PATHETIC AND THIS COULD BE WORSE WHEN ITS ALL DONE. SHAME ON CERTAIN AMERICAN POLITICIANS.
DAMN SHAME
MAYBE ITS WORTH IT IN THE LONG RUN. IM VERY PROUD OF THE SOLDIERS BUT EXTREMELY ASHAMED OF THE GUYS APPROVING THIS. IF THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN ORGANIZED PROPERLY IM SURE ALOT LESS AMERICAN SOLDIERS WOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED.
VIET NAM WAS PATHETIC AND THIS COULD BE WORSE WHEN ITS ALL DONE. SHAME ON CERTAIN AMERICAN POLITICIANS.
DAMN SHAME
Okay, how about THIS radical idea. Why didn't we just ARM the Kurds and Shiites in the South, give them air cover and let them march on Bagdad and fight for their OWN freedom?
Of course the Turks may not have liked it but we ended up arming the Kurds anyway.
Why didn't we pull a covert Ollie North-style op. Bush Sr. liked that idea in Nicaragua so much. US troops could have been used to secure the oil fields perhaps.
Anyway, so here we are where we are now. YOU WOULD THINK THAT AT THE VERY LEAST DUMSFELD WOULD HAVE FIGURED OUT TO SECURE THE BORDERS BY NOW WITH AT LEAST AERIAL SURVEILLANCE AND BUFFER ZONES.
Of course the Turks may not have liked it but we ended up arming the Kurds anyway.
Why didn't we pull a covert Ollie North-style op. Bush Sr. liked that idea in Nicaragua so much. US troops could have been used to secure the oil fields perhaps.
Anyway, so here we are where we are now. YOU WOULD THINK THAT AT THE VERY LEAST DUMSFELD WOULD HAVE FIGURED OUT TO SECURE THE BORDERS BY NOW WITH AT LEAST AERIAL SURVEILLANCE AND BUFFER ZONES.
